This blog is intended to provide the reader with important world news with an emphasis on Middle East and North Africa. It will publish news, analyses, comments, and opinions concerning those two regions. However, We welcome any comments, news or opinions which are related to their countries. You can visit too www.asswak-alarab.com for more information.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Will The US Declare Its Independence?

By John V. Whitbeck

While many questions relating to the state of
Palestine’s imminent application for UN membership are being raised and
vigorously debated, one relevant issue was not raised: How American interests
would be harmed if Palestine were to be admitted as the 194th member of the
United Nations, as it clearly would be in the absence of an American veto.

Perhaps
the question is not being raised and debated because no potential adverse
consequences - at least for the United States and its people - can be
envisioned and cited to justify a veto.

While
legal considerations have never weighed heavily on the American approach to
Israel and Palestine, it is worth noting that since November 1988, when the
state of Palestine was formally proclaimed,the Palestinian claim to sovereignty
(the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) over the remaining 22 per
cent of mandatory Palestine, which Israel conquered and occupied in 1967 (aside
from expanded East Jerusalem, to which Israel’s sovereignty claim is
universally rejected), has been both literally and legally uncontested.

Jordan
renounced its claim to sovereignty over the West Bank in July 1988. While Egypt
administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over
it. While Israel has formally annexed East Jerusalem and an arc of surrounding
territory (an annexation recognised by no state), it has for 44 years refrained
from asserting sovereignty over any other portion of the West Bank or Gaza
Strip, an act that would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack of
them) of those who live there.

The
four criteria codified in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of
States for a state to exist under international law - a permanent population, a
defined territory, government and a capacity to enter into relations with other
states - are clearly met by the state of Palestine. The Montevideo Convention,
as a ratified treaty that has not been renounced, has the status of domestic
law in the United States and both domestic and international laws require the
US government to respect and observe its provisions.

More
than 120 UN member states (including 15 of the 20 most populous countries,
encompassing the vast majority of mankind) have already extended diplomatic
recognition to the state of Palestine, and more are expected to do so as the
Security Council vote on its membership draws nearer.

Since
there can be no credible legal argument that the state of Palestine does not
yet meet the conventional and customary international law criteria for
sovereign statehood, any decision to oppose its UN membership application would
necessarily be based on purely political considerations.

Since
few people alive can remember the last time the United States disobeyed Israel,
it is widely assumed that it will inevitably veto the state of Palestine’s
membership application. Indeed, many commentators assert that it has publicly
pledged to do so. While the US government is desperately trying to prevent a
Security Council vote on Palestinian membership, it is far from certain that it
has pledged to impose its veto - or, even if it had, that it would actually do
so.

When
addressing a special Security Council session on the Middle East on July 26,
the American representative stated with respect to Palestine’s UN membership
initiative: “The United States will not support unilateral campaigns at the
United Nations in September or any other time.”

Setting
aside the Israeli-initiated absurdity of characterising an appeal for support
to the entire international community as a “unilateral” action, what is
important in this formulation is what it did not say. It did not say that the
United States will oppose the Palestinian membership application and cast its
veto to defeat it. If the United States had reached a firm decision to veto,
this would have been the logical occasion to say so.

Furthermore,
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, when asked in an interview published on
September 7 in the Los Angeles Times whether the Americans had told the
Palestinians that they will veto, replied: “The US told us that the UN is not
an option they will support. I hope they will not veto. How will they explain a
veto?”

Indeed,
while any potential harm to American national interests as a result of
Palestinian membership in the United Nationswould be difficult to imagine, the
adverse consequences for the United States of blocking Palestine’s membership
are dazzlingly obvious. An American veto would constitute a shotgun blast in
both of its feet, further isolating the United States from the rest of mankind
and outraging the already agitated and unstable Arab and Muslim worlds (notably
including Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey).

In
considering whether to veto or abstain, US President Barack Obama might wish to
reread an article by Prince Turki Al Faisal, the long-serving Saudi Arabian
intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States, which was published
on June 10 in The Washington Post and in which he warned: “There will be
disastrous consequences for US-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes UN
recognition of a Palestinian state. It would mark a nadir in the decades-long
relationship as well as irrevocably damage the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process and America’s reputation among Arab nations. The ideological distance
between the Muslim world and the West in general would widen - and
opportunities for friendship and cooperation between the two could vanish.”

Unless
the president’s sole concern is his reelection prospects, it should not be
ruled out that the US government just might, exceptionally, put American
national interests ahead of the desires of the Israeli government and abstain
when the time comes.

If
the US government does decide to defy most of mankind by casting its veto, this
would hurt the United States and Israel far more than it would hurt Palestine,
definitively disqualifying the United States from maintaining its monopoly stranglehold
on any “peace process”, which, since US objectives are indistinguishable from
Israel’s, could only be to Palestine’s advantage. The September UN initiative
is a win-win proposition for Palestine.

The
question at the UN this month is not, as is still frequently misreported,
whether Palestine will declare independence. It did so 23 years ago. The
question is whether the United States of America will declare independence.

-This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 12/09/2011
-The writer is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating
team at negotiations with Israel

About Me

I graduated from the French University in Beirut (St Joseph) specialising in Political and Economic Sciences. I started my working life in 1973 as a reporter and journalist for the pan-Arab magazine “Al-Hawadess” in Lebanon later becoming its Washington, D.C. correspondent. I subsequently moved to London in 1979 joining “Al-Majallah” magazine as its Deputy Managing Editor. In 1984 joined “Assayad” magazine in London initially as its Managing Editor and later as Editor-in-Chief. Following this, in 1990 I joined “Al-Wasat” magazine (part of the Dar-Al-Hayat Group) in London as a Managing Editor. In 2011 I became the Editor-In-Chief of Miraat el-Khaleej (Gulf Mirror). In July 2012 I became the Chairman of The Board of Asswak Al-Arab Publishing Ltd in UK and the Editor In Chief of its first Publication "Asswak Al-Arab" Magazine (Arab Markets Magazine) (www.asswak-alarab.com).

I have already authored five books. The first “The Tears of the Horizon” is a love story. The second “The Winter of Discontent in The Gulf” (1991) focuses on the first Gulf war sparked by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. His third book is entitled “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: From Balfour Promise to Bush Declaration: The Complications and the Road to a Lasting Peace” (March 2008). The fourth book is titled “How Iran Plans to Fight America and Dominate the Middle East” (October 2008) And the fifth and the most recent is titled "JIHAD'S NEW HEARTLANDS: Why The West Has Failed To Contain Islamic Fundamentalism" (May 2011).

Furthermore, I wrote the memoirs of national security advisor to US President Ronald Reagan, Mr Robert McFarlane, serializing them in “Al-Wasat” magazine over 14 episodes in 1992.

Over the years, I have interviewed and met several world leaders such as American President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Margaret Thacher, Late King Hassan II of Morocco, Late King Hussein of Jordan,Tunisian President Zein El-Abedine Bin Ali, Lybian Leader Moammar Al-Quadhafi,President Amine Gemayel of Lebanon,late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, Late Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, Haitian President Jean Claude Duvalier, Late United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan,Algerian President Shazli Bin Jdid, Jamaican Prime Minister Edward Siyagha and more...